No Chappaquiddick

MrHola

Banned
I’m planning to have EMK run in 1976 for President. The Chappaquiddick Incident can be easily butterflied away. I assume that Kennedy beats Carter in the primaries and defeats Ford in the elections. So now we have a President Edward Kennedy who is inaugerated in 1977. Who would be his VP? I assume a more conservative Democrat in order to balance the ticket a bit, I’m thinking of Henry “Scoop” Jackson or even Jimmy Carter.

So how would a Kennedy Administration tackle the problems of the late 1970s? I assume that Kennedy would be defeated by Ronald Reagan but it would be a election of epic proportions, the conservative Reagan versus the liberal Kennedy.
 
President Kennedy

Maybe Cater for VP to win the Southern votes. There would probably be fewer gaffes with Kennedy than Carter and possibly Kennedy would play a behind the scenes role in bringing about a solution to Northern Ireland is conjunction with Jim Callaghan who had Irish ancestors. People in the UK were suspicious about Kennedy over the issue but in practice he backed peace efforts such as Willy Whitelaws initiative which wasn't a lot different from the Good Friday accord.

Camp David probably the same. At home he may have tried to bring in social medicine as he went over to the UK to look at the NHS. Maybe he would have cut support for the Shah earlier and there would have been no hostage crisis or maybe he would have got lucky over it. He would face strong opposition from the insurance companies if he had gone ahead with social medicine and it may have cost him the election.

Would someone have had a shot at him? Maybe he hadn't upset the mob in the ways his brothers did and the ballot box would have beaten him in 1980.
 
So how would a Kennedy Administration tackle the problems of the late 1970s?

Short version: in approximately the same inept manner as Jimmy Carter; bottom line would be essentially identical. Given his affinity for booze, one wonders how often he'd be incapacitated and have to defer to the peanut farmer or perhaps Edmund Muskie for what passed for counsel.
 
Short version: in approximately the same inept manner as Jimmy Carter; bottom line would be essentially identical. Given his affinity for booze, one wonders how often he'd be incapacitated and have to defer to the peanut farmer or perhaps Edmund Muskie for what passed for counsel.

Nah. Kennedy was experienced at government, had staff that knew how to run the government, and would forge good relations with Congress.

Is the end result similar? Probably, but any administration of '77-'81 would end up with the same problems no matter what they did. Four years in the position that the United States was in at the time isn't going to change much except at the margins.

Quite probably Kennedy takes the government through a very tough time in what is perceived as a competent manner, and I would guess he would win re-election.
 
I think anyone could've handled Iran better than Carter, or at the very least Eagle Claw. How does he react to the invasion of Afghanistan, Solidarity in Poland or the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War?
 
Kennedy as Vice President

This occurs in Stephen Baxter's Voyage but Carter still loses but Kennedy doesn't restand as VP if I remember correctly
 
I’m planning to have EMK run in 1976 for President. The Chappaquiddick Incident can be easily butterflied away. I assume that Kennedy beats Carter in the primaries and defeats Ford in the elections. So now we have a President Edward Kennedy who is inaugerated in 1977. Who would be his VP? I assume a more conservative Democrat in order to balance the ticket a bit, I’m thinking of Henry “Scoop” Jackson or even Jimmy Carter.

So how would a Kennedy Administration tackle the problems of the late 1970s? I assume that Kennedy would be defeated by Ronald Reagan but it would be a election of epic proportions, the conservative Reagan versus the liberal Kennedy.

You make a lot of assumptions here, which is okay 'cause it's your TL; but, Chappaquiddick aside, Kennedy has many negatives to address if he's going to win in '76. Kennedy did have an alcohol problem, marital problems, and I believe that's the time frame when one of his sons was diagnosed w/cancer.

Regarding Kennedy's VP in '76, how about Terry Sanford of Georgia?
 
Regarding Kennedy's VP in '76, how about Terry Sanford of Georgia?

Terry Sanford of "North Carolina," possible but GOV/Senator Sanford was a Scoop Jackson Democrat. IT's 75-76 when T. Kennedy reallly completes his move to the far left wing of the Democrat Party. I know by the late 70s early 80's it was coin flip who he (TEK) was against more Reagan and the Republicans or the "Moderate/Conservative" Democrats" (Nunn, Bensen, Gephart, guy named Gore, Robb.... )

So Sanford and he are going to disaggree on a lot, Health care, taxes (Sanford supported the Reagan/Gephart Cuts and Reform), dealing with the Soviets, military (both spending and R&D, Kennedy was very anti new weapons period...), space program...

Got a picture with the Senator around somewhere, worked on his 86 Senate campaign.
 
Why Not 1972?

If Chappaquiddick never occurs, I would assume Kennedy would run in 1972. It was widely speculated that he was planning to run, before Chappaquiddick occurred.

Maybe he senses early that it's a Republican year, and choses not to run. If he does run, I think he loses. I don't think anyone beats Nixon that year. Almost anyone else would have done better than McGovern, but if Kennedy still loses by a considerable margin, it makes it difficult for him to run in 1976.

If he doesn't run in '72, and does run in '76, I'm not convinced he's the nominee. Granted, he's the front runner. So was Hillary Clinton.

His campaign in 1980 was a mess. It was unfocused. In his interview with Roger Mudd in 1979, he couldn't even answer WHY he wanted to be president. Maybe his 1976 candidacy is just as messy. Maybe other skeletons come out.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I'm certain Kennedy wouldn't have been the nominee. I'm just saying I'm not certain he's a lock. And if he does win the nomination, I'm not certain he beats Gerald Ford. Ford is an underrated candidate. His comfortable, moderate, 'don't rock the boat' personality was very appealing to a lot of people.

If Kennedy is the nominee, he doesn't carry any of the Southern states that Carter did. That means Kennedy has to make up the difference elsewhere, and that's not easy. Let's say Kennedy carries New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, and California -- states Carter didn't. Is that enough? I don't have the Electoral College numbers in front of me, but I don't think it is. What other states does Kennedy carry?
 
It's Possible

I'm replying to myself to say that it is theoretically possible for Kennedy to lose the entire South, but still win with California, Michigan, Illinois, and New Jersey.

If he loses the ten Southern states that Carter carried (I'm counting Kentucky but not Missouri), then Kennedy is down 127 Electoral votes from Carter's total. Kennedy has 170 at this point. He's 100 from victory.

If he carries California (45), Illinois (26), Michigan (21), and New Jersey (17), that's a total of 107 new Electoral votes. Kennedy has 277 votes, and wins.

But this assumes he carries all four of the new states, while retaining all of Carter's other states. I'm not sure Kennedy carries Missouri and Ohio. I'm not sure he can take Michigan from Ford, since it's Ford's home state. And remember: if Ford can bank on winning the South, most of the west, and the Great Plains, he can really focus on the four big battleground states.

Bottom line: it's close, no matter how you slice it. Kennedy might win, but it's tight.
 
I agree that Kennedy's 1980 primary campaign sucked, but that was the one thing Carter's Georgians were good at. Both in 1976 (where I'd actually give even odds in a Carter Vs. Kennedy match-up) and in 1980 they performed brilliantly. But in both the 1976 & 1980 general elections the Carter general election team was horrible against fantastic Republican teams.


I agree that Kennedy might well have ran in 1972, but on the other hand he turned down a sure thing to be the nominee in 1968[1] and it's entirely possible he chooses not to run in 1972 (do note that it wasn't a Republican year so much as an anti-McGovern year. Pre-dirty tricks Muskie was ahead of Nixon in the polls, and Congressionally the Republicans didn't do that well.)


So assuming he waits until 1976 he is certainly better prepared than 1980. For one he isn't running against the establishment, he is the establishment. For two, articulating that Carter was incompetent at running a government but that you have the same policies except a little left[2] is far harder than articulating the Democratic position against the Republican position.


Kennedy's main problem in 1976 is that the public liked the anti-Washington image (Reagan, Carter) and not so much the insider (Ford) but keep in mind Ford made back a 30 point deficit and given a couple more days might well have beaten Carter.


I'm willing to bet that Iowa is key. Carter (well, Hamilton Jordon) grasped that when no one else did. So let's have some young hotshot Democratic who works for Kennedy also get that. The other problem is money, as 1976 brought in all kinds of new post-Watergate rules.

However it's possible (though not probable) that Kennedy wins the nomination. No problem with that.


The problem lies in the South (as Tgibbs is on about) and with Ford—who, after all, has most of the smart Republican political operative corps working for him…*and Republicans, for historical reasons[3], had generally better political consultants.

We have a few good people around. For speechwriting we have the old Kennedy forces (Sorensen, Schlesinger) + Bob Shrum (yes, a horrible strategist but a darn good speechwriter) plus the old RFK Presidential run guys who are a lot more in touch in '76 than 1980.

So at the least Kennedy's general election time should be a fair bit better than Carters, if still not as good as Fords.


There are 31 close states (7.6% at the outside). Carter has 297 electoral votes. Let's take away the whole south including Missouri: 297 – 139 = 158.

Oregon (0.8%), Maine (0.8%) and Iowa (1.0%) can all be flipped to Kennedy which takes us up to 176. Add Illinois (2.2%), Washington (3.9%), New Jersey (2.2%), New Mexico (2.4%), California (1.7%), and Connecticut (5.2%).


That takes us to 285, which leaves us a few EV to spare.




[1] Outside the realm of this thread, but EMK was offered by Mayor Daley and the bosses along with the anti-war and McCarthy forces the chance to go against Humphrey. EMK + McCarthy would have stalled Humphrey on the first ballot, and I'd wager that Kennedy would have taken Humphrey on the second.

[2] No, WCDouglas Kennedy was not far-left—he might have wanted socialized healthcare, but Nixon offered him national health insurance. The entire US political spectrum was well to the left back than, Nixon today (for instance) would be a Democrat with left-wing social programs and centrist on foreign policy while Ford could be a centrist Democrat or one of the last (in today's terms) liberal Republicans.

Kennedy of '76 would today be out on the left wing, probably the farthest left, but back then he was solidly in the fairly populous left-liberal New Democratic wing.

[3] Lots of footnotes, huh? Anyway it centred on the Democratic Solid South, the need to take 2/3 of the Northern electoral votes to win, FDR & the New Deal making that impossible for a time, and finally the rise of conservative activists in the GOP. All of this meant far better grassroots organizing & political strategy than Democrats.
 
snipped

[2] No, WCDouglas Kennedy was not far-left—he might have wanted socialized healthcare, but Nixon offered him national health insurance. The entire US political spectrum was well to the left back than, Nixon today (for instance) would be a Democrat with left-wing social programs and centrist on foreign policy while Ford could be a centrist Democrat or one of the last (in today's terms) liberal Republicans.

Kennedy of '76 would today be out on the left wing, probably the farthest left, but back then he was solidly in the fairly populous left-liberal New Democratic wing.

EM, sorry for the late (very late) response, been over seas and missed. I'll have to respectfully disagree on Senator Kennedy's politics. As one who was involved in the 1980's North Carolina Demcrat party he was the left wing of the party, and did us in the Conservative wing no favors. Alot of what happend to the party in the 80's and up to 94 can be laid at Kennedy's feet as the "Liberal Slawart" of the Real Democratic Party.
 

Dure

Banned
I know a very rude song about Chappaquiddick, it involves the entire Kennedy clan in lots of anatomically questionable sex acts.
 
EM, sorry for the late (very late) response, been over seas and missed. I'll have to respectfully disagree on Senator Kennedy's politics. As one who was involved in the 1980's North Carolina Demcrat party he was the left wing of the party, and did us in the Conservative wing no favors. Alot of what happend to the party in the 80's and up to 94 can be laid at Kennedy's feet as the "Liberal Slawart" of the Real Democratic Party.

Meh. Personal involvement in campaigns can warp people's opinions.

Just ask all those Obama and Edwards supporters who were convinced they were fighting to stop the party from going reactionary.
 
Top